Ahh. So we get a coach that loses a team and he's still considered a good coach?
So much more to coaching than calling time outs? Seems like I'm talking to someone who has never even tried to coach.
You do understand Terry Stotts got paid for two years to relax right? I'll bet the league doesn't disagree with me as much as it does you.
Being a good head coach is much different than being a “good coach”.
There are a ton of good coaches who can develop players, or good at coaching defense, or good at coaching offense… but would make for less-than-stellar head coaches.
Darvin Ham, for example, is seemingly a “good” coach particularly defensively. I think he leaves a LOT to be desired as a head coach, but this is his first year.
I could list a whole bunch of head coaches in football that are better as coordinators or positional coaches.
So yeah, you can be a good coach but a bad head coach.
And yes, there is much more to coaching than calling timeouts which is why you can be a “good coach” and not a good “head coach”, starting with in-game adjustments. You’re making my point for me jeenus.
Yes, I also understand that a bunch of Stotts dick riders say that same thing, when he was obviously trying to get a job, because he was interviewing when called upon. I would also say he didn’t get a head coach position this year. If he was so in-demand, why not?
Didn’t even get an interview this go around, why not?
Anyway, might as well not respond because I’m done with this thread.
I stand by my position. Only fucking morons think Terry Stotts is anything more than a mediocre-at-best “head” coach.
Hope he gets another “head” job so we can see how he does.
Peace ✌